Regarding yesterday's test cases,
I got quite a few comments about the second scenario, where I propose
that I become the author of Cory Doctorow's web-published novel, offer
it for sale, and seek distribution.
The uniform response was that since Cory's book is offered under the Creative Commons attribution share-alike license,
I am not "permitted" to change the author's name, or charge for the
right to a copy. I put the word permitted in quotes, because the
responders haven't explained why Cory's work is so-protected and my
work, which is offered under a standard copyright, isn't.
In
other words, the responders think there is a line. Aha! There are some
things one is not allowed to do with another person's work. They said
not only is it possible for Cory to opt-out of my creative rip-and-burn
act of 21st Century artistry, but it actually requires Cory to opt-in!
Well well well.
Does this perhaps ring a bell?
And
since I haven't heard from Cory, I still wonder if it's okay with him
that I republish his work for money and claim authorship of it, since I
know he doesn't believe in opt-in or out. I believe his philosophy is "Tough shit."
Also,
I haven't heard from the EFF about the proposal that they let me filter
eff.org, replacing links, author's names, correct spelling, and edit
their copy to be more agreeable to the entertainment industry.
This is so out of proportion is not even worth commenting on. Google Tool bar does not change the authors name, nor does it republishes
the work. It is equivalent to marginal notes that the user puts in a
book. There is no way for me to show a modified page to the world.
Dave, do you really not see the difference? What I do in my own
computer is one thing, what I show to the rest of the world is another.
Get it?
11:31:21 AM 
|
|
Diccionario RAE (Click Here)